By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Jay520 on 18 January 2013
Edit Thread
Michael-5 said:
Jay520 said:

You say you're against homosexuality because it spreads STDs. But there's no intrinsic connection between homosexuality and unprotected sex. What you are against is a specific subset of homosexuals, homosexuals who practice unprotected sex. Based on what you said, you shouldn't have a problem with homosexuality as a whole, because there are plenty of homoesexuals who practice safe sex, and you should be fine with those people.

As for the disorder definition, you probably could find a definition that matches homosexuality. That's not really my point. I'm interested in an inherent quality of homosexuality that makes you "against" homosexuality. The only inherent 'flaw' of homosexuality is the inability to naturally reproduce. I guess you could be against homosexuality for that reason, though I really don't see why you should care about other people's ability to reproduce.

1. Actually there is, Homosexuals have higher odds at carrying most STD's. I could look uo the numbers, but it should be pretty obvious. Bisexuals especially have the highest frequency of STD's per capita.

However, you are correct, I have nothing against homosexuals who practice safe sex.

2. As for your second point, it's not that I see homosexuality as a "flaw" but as a mutation which hurts the fitness of a species. I reaslly don't care if people are gay, we have enough people in the world, but it's still a mutation/disorder/defect, which is nagative towards humanity as a whole.

3. So like you said, I have nothing against homosexuals who practice safe sex. However I am pro looking for a cure because many homosexuals don't wish to be homosexuals, and it's unfair to them that they can't live life in a normal way. People don't choose to become gay, so for now, gay marriage is the answer to their problems. Once there is a cure for homosexuality my opinion on gay marriage might change.

Homosexuality isn't a big deal to me, just like Albinoism isn't, However am I against looking for a cure for people who can't produce melatop in their skin to protect them from the sun? No, I want to help these people out, just like I want to help cure homosexuality because given the choice, many homosexuals would choose to "cure" themselves and become straight.

1. No, those statistics are the result of unprotected sex, not homosexuality. You have a problem with unprotected sex, not homosexuality as a whole. So don't say you are against homosexuality as whole, because that's just not true; you are fine with plenty of homosexuals. Instead, say you are against homosexuals who practice unprotected sex.

2. Please explain to me how homosexuality harms humanity as whole. Do you think humanity is in dire need of more people? Do you think humanity will be noticeably damaged if a small population cannot reproduce? How exactly is homosexuality harming the human race?

3. I never contested against looking for a cure for homosexuality. Sure, there's nothing wrong with wanting a cure for homosexuality for those who don't wish to be gay. In fact, it would probably be an excellent discovery (if possible, of course). What I have a problem with is you saying you are "against" homosexuality as whole. There's a big difference between being against a condition, and wanting a cure for that condition. Big difference.